3 ms·

Also note, that labor income is usually higher taxed than capital income.

eru 3y ago
Yes. And both are wrong. Neither labour nor capital should be taxed, as long as there's still land to be taxed. See Land Value Tax.
- jampekka 3y ago
  Private capital should not exist. See socialism.
  - eru 3y ago
    Why not? Attempts at socialism haven't worked out so far. They have invariable devolved into 'not real socialism', despite best efforts and noble intentions.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Socialism is all over. Schools are socialist, socialized healthcare is socialist, and police and military and public roads and social security and libraries etc etc. Also plenty of state owned industry doing just fine. Attempts at capitalism haven't worked out so far. They have invariably devolved into 'crony capitalism' despite ruthless profit maximization and widespread selfishness.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  Land is capital.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    This does depend on definitions. In classical economics the factors of production were labor, land and capital stock. Notably "land" means any non-man-made resource, probably including legal monopolies like intellectual property, which contemporary neo-Georgists seem to totally ignore. Capital stock means man-made stuff that is used to produce something, e.g. buildings and machines. Marx generalized capital to roughly mean anything that makes money for the owner without them doing work. Neoclassical (the current mainstream) definition is quite close to Marx's. Land is capital.
    - eru 3y ago
      For purposes of taxation, what's important is how 'elastic' a taxed good is. If you tax beer a lot, people drink wine instead. If you tax labour or capital, you get less of them. Especially in a globalised economy. But the supply of land is fixed, it's perfectly inelastic. So you can tax land without any deadweight losses to the economy.
  - eru 3y ago
    We can make more capital. We can't make more land. [0] The supply of land is perfectly inelastic, it's fixed. So taxing it doesn't burden the economy, there are no deadweight losses. [0] Yes, I know that land reclamation is a thing, but that's mixing up definitions of 'land'. In the generalised economic sense, sea floor is also 'land'.

eru 3y ago

Yes. And both are wrong. Neither labour nor capital should be taxed, as long as there's still land to be taxed. See Land Value Tax.

jampekka 3y ago
Private capital should not exist. See socialism.
- eru 3y ago
  Why not? Attempts at socialism haven't worked out so far. They have invariable devolved into 'not real socialism', despite best efforts and noble intentions.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    Socialism is all over. Schools are socialist, socialized healthcare is socialist, and police and military and public roads and social security and libraries etc etc. Also plenty of state owned industry doing just fine. Attempts at capitalism haven't worked out so far. They have invariably devolved into 'crony capitalism' despite ruthless profit maximization and widespread selfishness.
throwawayqqq11 3y ago
Land is capital.
- jampekka 3y ago
  This does depend on definitions. In classical economics the factors of production were labor, land and capital stock. Notably "land" means any non-man-made resource, probably including legal monopolies like intellectual property, which contemporary neo-Georgists seem to totally ignore. Capital stock means man-made stuff that is used to produce something, e.g. buildings and machines. Marx generalized capital to roughly mean anything that makes money for the owner without them doing work. Neoclassical (the current mainstream) definition is quite close to Marx's. Land is capital.
  - eru 3y ago
    For purposes of taxation, what's important is how 'elastic' a taxed good is. If you tax beer a lot, people drink wine instead. If you tax labour or capital, you get less of them. Especially in a globalised economy. But the supply of land is fixed, it's perfectly inelastic. So you can tax land without any deadweight losses to the economy.
- eru 3y ago
  We can make more capital. We can't make more land. [0] The supply of land is perfectly inelastic, it's fixed. So taxing it doesn't burden the economy, there are no deadweight losses. [0] Yes, I know that land reclamation is a thing, but that's mixing up definitions of 'land'. In the generalised economic sense, sea floor is also 'land'.